But in fact, there is another crucial question to ask: Regardless of whether
individuals can live the good life in one sort of place, does it scale up? Can
we, collectively, live the good life if we build miles upon miles of such places?
In other words, the question we really need to be asking is, "What are the consequences of our development pattern?"
In the case of the automobile-centric form of growth that
took over North America after World War II, there are clear answers that have little to do with cultural or lifestyle preferences. They are empirical, quantifiable, and lead us in a more productive direction than fixating on the supposed quality-of-life defects of one place or another.
Auto-centric development is a
fiscal disaster. It is a pattern of development that produces
greater liabilities and less wealth than traditional, walkable neighborhoods. It has a tremendous financial burn rate and results in places that
tend not to hold their value over time. As a result,
local governments across North America are
grappling with the
specter of
insolvency.
There are also clear ecological reasons to be alarmed by the spread of automobile-centric development. It results in far more
paving over of the earth, far more emissions of particulate pollution and greenhouse gases, and a fragmented landscape with large swaths of
non-place.
Motor vehicles are
a tremendous cause of accidental death each year, killing as many people in the United States as do firearms. A growing share of those people are
pedestrians and cyclists. Building places that require high-speed travel to function
results in despotic conditions for Americans who choose to or have to walk.
In those aspects, we are living a failing experiment, and the costs are all around us. But the reasons it's failing are not because people don't like it. And the fact that many people
do like it doesn't mean it's not failing. I can like all sorts of things that I also recognize I must enjoy in moderation.
